Well, I think she is more qualified and would have done a better job than Obama. As for 2016, GM once accused me of ageism. It's not true,but..... this is one tough job whichever side of the aisle you come from. I'm not sure I would vote for someone age 69 unless they had a veryqualified VP and was much younger. That was my problem with McCain.

Not to mention Whitewater, the weird death of Vincent Foster, the weird appearance of subpoened law firm documents in her office after the statute of limitations had expired, and whathisname going to prison on her behalf and then getting $700,000 from Chinese front family the Riady's of Indonesia, and the $97,000 pay off in the form of commodities trading profits.

"I saw an extended interview by Wolf Blitzer on CNN with Hillary and Leon Panetta while I was in Munich. A real soft interview of course, but I must say that Hillary is seeming warmer, more human, and more likable recently. She and P. were laughing and joking with each other a lot. It seemed like their personal comfort level was very high. Not saming I'm buying it, but what with pictures of her drinking beer, partying, and other things, on top of a lot of people thinking she has been well seasoned by her stint as SecState, I do think that she would make a formidable addition to Baraq's chances. A lot of women would see her as being a shoo-in for 2016 after VPing for 2012-2016."

That does appear to be the plan.

There is no question we are not done with the Clintons.

There is a whole industry built around them ready to pounce her into office.

JDN will post, of course, that that would be wonderful later in this thread.

Rachel who has not come back onto the board because she took the BCP flap "personally" would of course be a Hilllary champion.

Even my sister a republican recently told me she has bought the Koolaid by telling me she thinks the Hill is doing a good job.

As men, we must not underestimate the anger women have for men.

*Honesty* does not it seem have much relevance when dealing with societal segments who identify with particular candidates.

Word is that former First Daughter Chelsea Clinton's career as an NBC special correspondent isn't going terribly well. Labeled the "Dork Diva" by one media blog, network officials complain about everything from her refusal to discuss growing up in the Clinton White House to what they consider her lack of story production (just a handful since starting there last year). "What's she giving us?" one NBC executive asked skeptically.Many people think Chelsea will follow in the footsteps of parents Bill and Hillary and run for office if her television career implodes, but I disagree.After watching her recent performance moderating a New York Jewish Community Center forum on "Islamophobia," it's apparent that mere election to Congress or some other public office wouldn't be the best use of Chelsea's talent.But if she decided on a career as a public-relations spokesman for the "Islamophobia Industry," her growth potential would be limitless. When I refer to the Industry, I mean organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and scores of like-minded groups that have proliferated across the United States during the past 20 years.In general, these ideologues work to stifle legitimate debate by discrediting anyone who tries to point out the role of radical Islam in terrorism around the world or the radicalism in indoctrination centers and mosques like this, this, this and this as a bigot. The Industry also works to discredit successful prosecutions of jihadists seeking to attack the United States.One weapon that has proven useful to the Industry is so-called "interfaith dialogue" involving Jewish and Islamic leaders. The Muslim participants tend to be Islamists, while their Jewish counterparts tend to be well-meaning "useful idiots" like Rabbi Marc Schneier, who has tried to establish a partnership with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which is rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood. All too often, the result is a debacle in which the liberal Jews pine for dialogue while the Islamists stonewall and repeat anti-Semitic slanders.And when Schneier (who heads a group called the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, or FFEU) and Imam Muhammad Shamsi Ali joined Chelsea Clinton at the JCC March 14, things didn't go a whole lot better. Although it talks a lot about the virtues of diversity, the Islamophobia Industry portrays Muslim life in America in a bleak, one-dimensional way: as if Muslims here are little more than innocent victims of thuggish, bigoted non-Muslim gangs determined to punish them for 9/11 and subsequent jihadist actions.I was taught a long time ago in Journalism 101 that the job of a journalist is to report on the news – not to act as an advocate or partisan. NBC's special correspondent views things a lot differently, declaring it is "the responsibility of the media to help ameliorate Islamophobia."And that's precisely what Chelsea tried to do, tossing one softball after another to Ali and Schneier, parroting misinformation of her own and failing to question whoppers from the imam and the rabbi. Schneier, for example, bragged about his collaboration with hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons at FEU, but didn't get a single question from the moderator about Simmons' long history of sycophantic praise for Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a notorious anti-Semite.Nor did Chelsea seem well-informed about the Ground Zero Mosque controversy that heated up in 2010. She asked Schneier how "you think about trying to use the media to in many ways combat the media?" Chelsea suggested that Schneier might need to gear up for battle because "we saw such vitriolic statements covered widely in the media" with commentators using "terms that at best were insensitive to somewhere in the middle, or derogatory, and at worst were really dehumanizing." (She neglected to provide an example).After Chelsea asked what the pair was doing to stop this, Schneier talked about his opposition to hearings on Islamist radicalization in the United States by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., and bragged about working with Islamist Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., in an effort to win the release of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Schneier received thunderous applause from the audience when he described such work as an example of "the genuine authenticity that is needed for this Muslim/Jewish reconciliation."Neither Schneier nor Chelsea Clinton bothered to mention that this "authenticity" came at a heavy price: the release of more than 1,000 imprisoned terrorist operatives, including planners of grisly attacks targeting civilians.Just as the New York Times propagandized against "The Third Jihad" (a film spotlighting the threat posed by radical Islamist ideology), Chelsea falsely asserted that the film attacked "Muslim Americans" as a group as "somewhere on the continuum from deceitful to a terrorist in waiting." In fact, the documentary doesn't target Muslims as a group but does detail how CAIR was created after a secret 1993 meeting in Philadelphia involving members of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee. The meeting was to generate support for the Hamas terror organization which runs Gaza today.And Chelsea accepted without challenge Ali's disinformation about the word jihad. While he acknowledged it is a "scary word," Ali said people don't necessarily have to fear jihad, which can sometimes be a good thing. "We are doing a jihad. This is a jihad for peace, jihad for harmony, jihad for cooperation between people."Chelsea appeared blissfully ignorant of Ali's links with Islamists and his criticism of the media for associating Muslims with jihadist terror.The imam wasn't asked, for example, about his role as co-chairman of a 2006 Muslim Day Parade in which radical Imam Siraj Wahhaj, (a character witness for the "Blind Sheikh" at his terrorism trial) served as grand marshal.After a Danish newspaper published cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad, Ali called the cartoons "psychological warfare against the Muslim world." At a protest outside the Danish consulate in New York City, Ali politely introduced speakers like Sara Flounders of the International Action Center, who called the cartoons "part of a war on all Muslim people" as well as conspiracy theorists who demanded that Washington end its support for "the racist occupying regime in Palestine."Speaking at a 2008 conference sponsored by the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Muslim American Society, Ali suggested that the media (rather than the jihadists) was to blame for connecting radical Islam and terror."The media is a culprit in damaging Islam's reputation," he said. "Such terms as 'Islamic terrorists,' 'Muslim radicals,' 'Shi'ite extremists,' 'Sunni bombers,' 'Islamic suicide bombers,' have become headlines."Like Ali, Schneier directs much of his fire at Americans who have the temerity to ask difficult questions about radicalism and its origins. One of the rabbi's favorite targets has been Rep. King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, who Schneier depicts as a contributor to anti-Muslim bigotry for investigating radicalism.At a March 2011 press conference, Schneier said he shares Ellison's concern "that these hearings will only exacerbate anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamophobia in our country."Schneier's own forays into "interfaith dialogue" haven't always proven to be unvarnished successes. Shortly after Nidal Hasan, an Islamist serving as a military psychiatrist, massacred 13 people at Ford Hood, Tex., Schneier described in the Washington Post the successes of a "Weekend of Twinning of Synagogues and Mosques."Writing at Frontpagemag.com, Ilya Feoktistov of Americans for Peace and Tolerance described how one such "twinning" turned disastrous. A Buffalo, N.Y.-area Jewish geriatrician and a Muslim dentist attended a medical conference in Damascus, Syria. During a break in the conference, the Muslim escorted his Jewish counterpart to a nearby mosque where he was introduced to an imam who sounded moderate – at least in his English-language writings and remarks.After Jewish officials in Buffalo had the imam's Arabic-language writings translated into English, they learned that he was virulent anti-Semite and a political ally of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.The Islamist radicals were doing this (with Schneier's unwitting help) because such "disingenuous interfaith dialogue with Jewish leaders is also a strategic force-multiplier for extremists," Feoktistov wrote. "The rest of American society tends to look to Jews on the topic of extremist bigotry and intolerance as the proverbial canary in the coal mine. By embracing radical Islamists in an official interfaith relationship, Jewish leaders give them a ticket into American institutions."Interfaith dialogue between Jews and Muslims "can be valuable. Yet dialogue is only productive when it occurs with partners who are honest about their true intentions," he added. "Instead of promoting peace and tolerance, legitimizing such entities through interfaith partnerships will only promote the hatred they preach when they think the Jews aren't paying attention."One person who hadn't been paying attention was Chelsea, who clearly knew nothing about such politically inconvenient facts. "I think it's part of what is so impressive about the work that you do, that it's not only dialogue, that it is motivated by a shared purpose to build a shared community, to build a shared future of the promised land," she gushed to Schneier and Ali.While the younger Clinton's gullibility allowed plenty of opportunity for the rabbi and the imam to peddle disinformation, it's striking to note what didn't get talked about: Muslim violence against non-Muslims and Muslims alike. The JCC audience wasn't burdened with information about Taliban savagery towards women; al-Qaida attacks targeting Iraqi civilians; al-Shabaab's predations against Somalis, or annoyances like terrorist attacks targeting Christian communities in Egypt and Iraq.No, this was a Kumbaya moment, and Chelsea wasn't about to let the facts get in the way of the rabbi and the imam's propaganda shtick. It is simply disgraceful that the leadership of the New York JCC, who should know better, allowed themselves to be used as a conduit for such one-sided agitprop.

Apparently all three of them will be 1/2 block from my house tomorrow. Bill is giving a commencement speech at Redondo Union HS because his nephew (via his brother) is graduating. Due to security issues, a substantial clusterfcuk is expected.

I don't wish injury or ill health to anyone - except maybe Hugo Chavez - so this is a sad story and I wish her truly a full and speedy recovery.

That said and no reason to doubt anything, but there is this: they didn't say when it happened, and "Mrs. Clinton's illness appears likely to delay her planned testimony Thursday before a congressional body investigating the September terrorist attack on a U.S. mission in Benghazi..."

So, if we say we suspect she is lying, then we are wishing her good health?

Those of us who followed the White Water saga during the Clinton years in the WSJ (which did an OUTSTANDING job of not letting go of it-- a pit bull would have been impressed) will remember how again and again the Clintons moved key witnesses out of reach of investigators by assigning them overseas etc.

So, if we say we suspect she is lying, then we are wishing her good health?

Those of us who followed the White Water saga during the Clinton years in the WSJ (which did an OUTSTANDING job of not letting go of it-- a pit bull would have been impressed) will remember how again and again the Clintons moved key witnesses out of reach of investigators by assigning them overseas etc.

If wish her at least 50 years of good health - and hope she invests all her book money in the American private sector, hiring thousands of people under all the new tax and regulatory rules, particularly as they relate to healthcare, employee leave and all the rest.

Hillary in her prime as First Lady came on a local conservative talk show called Garage Logic, set in a fictional town where they believe most good ideas start out in the garage. The banter got a little awkward when it turned out this woman had never owned a car, a house that she lived in, or a garage.

Yes, the WSJ was all over the Whitewater scandal with all its corruption, especially before reelection, and the exposed guilt and shiftiness made no difference at all in their popularity.

I regret having this thought, but there is something fishy about having an unreported fall on an unspecified day at an undisclosed location, not being hospitalized, doing just fine, but unable to testify at public hearings, more than a week later, on Benghazi. They didn't request the hearings moved a day or a week, instead they will provide some other 'senior official' in her place to say things like "I don't know" and "we will have to wait until the investigation is complete."

As the Clintons used to say after blocking, stonewalling and stalling: That old issue? Those questions were all asked and answered a LONG time ago.'

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton Is Hospitalized With Blood Clot

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was hospitalized on Sunday with a blood clot stemming from a concussion she suffered earlier this month, a State Department spokesman said.Mrs. Clinton, who canceled most of her public events in recent weeks because of her concussion, was at a follow-up exam Sunday when doctors discovered a blood clot, according to Philippe Reines, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton.“She is being treated with anticoagulants and is at New York-Presbyterian Hospital so that they can monitor the medication over the next 48 hours,” Mr. Reines said in a statement.READ MORE »http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/us/hillary-clinton-goes-to-hospital-after-exam-finds-a-blood-clot.html?emc=na

By THOMAS M. BURTON Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is suffering from a blood clot located between her brain and her skull, behind her right ear, her physicians said Monday, describing the location of the clot for the first time since she was hospitalized on Sunday.

he didn't suffer a stroke or sustain any neurological damage, said her doctors.

"In all other aspects of her recovery, the secretary is making excellent progress and we are confident she will make a full recovery," Dr. Lisa Bardack of Mt. Kisco, N.Y., and Dr. Gigi El-Bayoumi of George Washington University said. "She is in good spirits, engaging with her doctors, her family, and her staff."

The blood clot is in a vein that experts said drains blood from the brain and is in an area known as the right transverse sinus, which the physicians described as a space between the brain and skull, behind the ear.

They said the blood clot was discovered Sunday in a "routine follow-up" visit. They said Mrs. Clinton would be released from the hospital once a proper dosage of blood thinners has been established. She was being treated at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia in New York City.

State Department officials before Monday afternoon's statement had declined to say where the blood clot was located.

The clot was the latest health problem to confront Mrs. Clinton in recent weeks. She became ill with a stomach virus during a European trip early in December. That virus led to what officials described as dehydration and caused her to faint, fall and suffer a concussion. The blood clot was discovered over the weekend.

Dr. Lori Shutter, a neurologist and critical-care doctor at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said Mrs. Clinton was fortunate that the clot was in this particular vein, because there are two such veins, one behind each ear. With one blocked, the second is able to continue draining used blood from the brain.

Without that backup, the clot could have led to a "venous stroke." In that condition, the brain cannot properly drain itself of blood, resulting in a buildup of pressure. Because of the pressure, the brain wouldn't be able to accept sufficient amounts of oxygenated blood from arteries to sustain the tissue—hence a stroke.

Dr. Shutter said Mrs. Clinton's clot could well have been caused by the fall and concussion earlier in December. The fall could have led to a hairline fracture of the bone surrounding the vein, or could have caused inflammation within the vein. Either way, Dr. Shutter said, a clot could have occurred.

Dr. Shutter, who isn't involved in Mrs. Clinton's care, said the secretary likely will be on blood thinners for months.

Venous strokes more typically occur because of a clot in another vein, called the superior sagittal sinus. This is because there is only one such vein and any blockage there could prove more critical. A venous stroke is considered generally less severe than the most common kind of strokes, which are caused by a clot in an artery, which blocks blood flow to the brain and can kill brain tissue. By contrast, a venous stroke can cause some minor weakness or confusion, said Dr. Shutter.

The disclosure of the location of Mrs. Clinton's blood clot came near the end of the day, after State Department officials had refused to elaborate on her condition. It wasn't clear when physicians determined the secretary had avoided a stroke or any neurological damage, or whether that determination contributed to the delay in the release of details about her condition.

Earlier in the day on Monday, hospital executives referred all questions about Mrs. Clinton's condition to the State Department, where officials wouldn't respond to questions.

The latest setback may affect plans for Mrs. Clinton to testify before Congress about the Sept. 11 assault on a U.S. diplomatic post in Libya that claimed the lives of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, and resulted in sharp criticism of her agency.

She initially had planned to testify Dec. 20, but postponed that appearance because of her concussion, promising before her hospitalization Sunday to appear before lawmakers in January.

It used to be said of the Clinton's, they lie with such ease. In the latest deal, you could say they deceive, stonewall and turn things around on people with such ease. As I wrote on the Benghazi thread, that does not change the facts.

We are not learning much about Benghazi right now but might as well take the opportunity to reflect on what we may already know about Hillary. Seems well sourced, some facts in dispute.

I've decided to reprint a piece of work I did nearly five years ago, because it seems very relevant today given Hillary Clinton's performance in the Benghazi hearings. Back in 2008 when she was running for president, I interviewed two erstwhile staff members of the House Judiciary Committee who were involved with the Watergate investigation when Hillary was a low-level staffer there. I interviewed one Democrat staffer and one Republican staffer, and wrote two pieces based on what they told me about Hillary's conduct at the time.

I published these pieces back in 2008 for North Star Writers Group, the syndicate I ran at the time. This was the most widely read piece we ever had at NSWG, but because NSWG never gained the high-profile status of the major syndicates, this piece still didn't reach as many people as I thought it deserved to. Today, given the much broader reach of CainTV and yet another incidence of Hillary's arrogance in dealing with a congressional committee, I think it deserves another airing. For the purposes of simplicity, I've combined the two pieces into one very long one. If you're interested in understanding the true character of Hillary Clinton, it's worth your time to read it.

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.

Franklin Polk, who served at the time as chief Republican counsel on the committee, confirmed many of these details in two interviews he granted me this past Friday, although his analysis of events is not always identical to Zeifman’s. Polk specifically confirmed that Hillary wrote the memo in question, and confirmed that Hillary ignored the Douglas case. (He said he couldn’t confirm or dispel the part about Hillary taking the Douglas files.)

To Polk, Hillary’s memo was dishonest in the sense that she tried to pretend the Douglas precedent didn’t exist. But unlike Zeifman, Polk considered the memo dishonest in a way that was more stupid than sinister.

“Hillary should have mentioned that (the Douglas case), and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion,” Polk said.

Polk recalled that the attempt to deny counsel to Nixon upset a great many members of the committee, including just about all the Republicans, but many Democrats as well.

“The argument sort of broke like a firestorm on the committee, and I remember Congressman Don Edwards was very upset,” Polk said. “He was the chairman of the subcommittee on constitutional rights. But in truth, the impeachment precedents are not clear. Let’s put it this way. In the old days, from the beginning of the country through the 1800s and early 1900s, there were precedents that the target or accused did not have the right to counsel.”

That’s why Polk believes Hillary’s approach in writing the memorandum was foolish. He says she could have argued that the Douglas case was an isolated example, and that other historical precedents could apply.

But Zeifman says the memo and removal of the Douglas files was only part the effort by Hillary, Doar, Nussbaum and Marshall to pursue their own agenda during the investigation.

After my first column, some readers wrote in claiming Zeifman was motivated by jealousy because he was not appointed as the chief counsel in the investigation, with that title going to Doar instead.

Zeifman’s account is that he supported the appointment of Doar because he, Zeifman, a) did not want the public notoriety that would come with such a high-profile role; and b) didn’t have much prosecutorial experience. When he started to have a problem with Doar and his allies was when Zeifman and others, including House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill and Democratic committee member Jack Brooks of Texas, began to perceive Doar’s group as acting outside the directives and knowledge of the committee and its chairman, Peter Rodino.

(O’Neill died in 1994. Brooks is still living and I tried unsuccessfully to reach him. I’d still like to.)

This culminated in a project to research past presidential abuses of power, which committee members felt was crucial in aiding the decisions they would make in deciding how to handle Nixon’s alleged offenses.

According to Zeifman and other documents, Doar directed Hillary to work with a group of Yale law professors on this project. But the report they generated was never given to the committee. Zeifman believes the reason was that the report was little more than a whitewash of the Kennedy years – a part of the Burke Marshall-led agenda of avoiding revelations during the Watergate investigation that would have embarrassed the Kennedys.

The fact that the report was kept under wraps upset Republican committee member Charles Wiggins of California, who wrote a memo to his colleagues on the committee that read in part:

Within the past few days, some disturbing information has come to my attention. It is requested that the facts concerning the matter be investigated and a report be made to the full committee as it concerns us all.

Early last spring when it became obvious that the committee was considering presidential "abuse of power" as a possible ground of impeachment, I raised the question before the full committee that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon.

As I recall, several other members joined with me in this request. I recall as well repeating this request from time to time during the course of our investigation. The staff, as I recall, was noncommittal, but it is certain that no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use.

Wiggins believed the report was purposely hidden from committee members. Chairman Rodino denied this, and said the reason Hillary’s report was not given to committee members was that it contained no value. It’s worth noting, of course, that the staff member who made this judgment was John Doar.

In a four-page reply to Wiggins, Rodino wrote in part:

Hillary Rodham of the impeachment inquiry staff coordinated the work. . . . After the staff received the report it was reviewed by Ms. Rodham, briefly by Mr. Labovitz and Mr. Sack, and by Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form. . . .

In your letter you suggest that members of the staff may have intentionally suppressed the report during the course of its investigation. That was not the case.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Doar was more concerned that any highlight of the project might prejudice the case against President Nixon. The fact is that the staff did not think the material was usable by the committee in its existing form and had not had time to modify it so it would have practical utility for the members of the committee. I was informed and agreed with the judgment.

Mr. Labovitz, by the way, was John Labovitz, another member of the Democratic staff. I spoke with Labovitz this past Friday as well, and he is no fan of Jerry Zeifman.

“If it’s according to Zeifman, it’s inaccurate from my perspective,” Labovitz said. He bases that statement on a recollection that Zeifman did not actually work on the impeachment inquiry staff, although that is contradicted not only by Zeifman but Polk as well.

Labovitz said he has no knowledge of Hillary having taken any files, and defended her no-right-to-counsel memo on the grounds that, if she was assigned to write a memo arguing a point of view, she was merely following orders.

But as both Zeifman and Polk point out, that doesn’t mean ignoring background of which you are aware, or worse, as Zeifman alleges, confiscating documents that disprove your argument.

All told, Polk recalls the actions of Hillary, Doar and Nussbaum as more amateurish than anything else.

“Of course the Republicans went nuts,” Polk said. “But so did some of the Democrats – some of the most liberal Democrats. It was more like these guys – Doar and company – were trying to manage the members of Congress, and it was like, ‘Who’s in charge here?’ If you want to convict a president, you want to give him all the rights possible. If you’re going to give him a trial, for him to say, ‘My rights were denied,’ – it was a stupid effort by people who were just politically tone deaf. So this was a big deal to people in the proceedings on the committee, no question about it. And Jerry Zeifman went nuts, and rightfully so. But my reaction wasn’t so much that it was underhanded as it was just stupid.”

Polk recalls Zeifman sharing with him at the time that he believed Hillary’s primary role was to report back to Burke Marshall any time the investigation was taking a turn that was not to the liking of the Kennedys.

“Jerry used to give the chapter and verse as to how Hillary was the mole into the committee works as to how things were going,” Polk said. “And she’d be feeding information back to Burke Marshall, who, at least according to Jerry, was talking to the Kennedys. And when something was off track in the view of the Kennedys, Burke Marshall would call John Doar or something, and there would be a reconsideration of what they were talking about. Jerry used to tell me that this was Hillary’s primary function.”

Zeifman says he had another staff member get him Hillary’s phone records, which showed that she was calling Burke Marshall at least once a day, and often several times a day.

A final note about all this: I wrote my first column on this subject because, in the aftermath of Hillary being caught in her Bosnia fib, I came in contact with Jerry Zeifman and found his story compelling. Zeifman has been trying to tell his story for many years, and the mainstream media have ignored him. I thought it deserved an airing as a demonstration of how early in her career Hillary began engaging in self-serving, disingenuous conduct.

Disingenuously arguing a position? Vanishing documents? Selling out members of her own party to advance a personal agenda? Classic Hillary. Neither my first column on the subject nor this one were designed to show that Hillary is dishonest. I don’t really think that’s in dispute. Rather, they were designed to show that she has been this way for a very long time – a fact worth considering for anyone contemplating voting for her for president of the United States.

By the way, there’s something else that started a long time ago.

“She would go around saying, ‘I’m dating a person who will some day be president,’” Polk said. “It was like a Babe Ruth call. And because of that comment she made, I watched Bill Clinton’s political efforts as governor of Arkansas, and I never counted him out because she had made that forecast.”

Bill knew what he wanted a long time ago. Clearly, so did Hillary, and her tactics for trying to achieve it were established even in those early days.

Wow, a fascinating bit of history you've brought up from the memory hole there Doug.

In a similar vein there is the matter of her receiving $97,000 laundered dollars from Tyson Foods via her commodity straddles trades in the late 70s while Bill was running for governor. (I think I have already posted about it.)

Hillary's Dismal Record At StateBy DICK MORRISPublished on DickMorris.com on February 1, 2013

The media spin is that she has been an excellent Secretary of State. But its just spin.

Look at the record:

• Chavez now controls Argentina, Bolivia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Ecuador as well as Venezuela and has big influence in Brazil. He is providing a base for Iran to move into the hemisphere.

• Russia has become more repressive and aggressive. Democracy advocates are more subject to arrest and torture and nothing has come of the "reset" except more appeasement.

• The Ukraine has drifted closer to Russia and further away from the West.

• Iran is much closer to having the bomb and likely using it against Israel.

• We've lost Egypt and Islamist power is sweeping the Arab world. The singular achievement of American Mid East diplomacy over the past fifty years -- the Camp David Accords -- are being undone as we speak.

• North Korea gets ever more brazen, has become a nuclear power, and now has put a satellite into orbit.

• China still weakens its currency making our products too expensive there and theirs' cheaper here. And it launches cyber attacks against institutions like the New York Times with total impunity.

• The Islamist offensive in sub-Sahara Africa gains momentum.

• Afghanistan is no closer to putting down the Taliban, is still one of the most corrupt of the world's governments, and Pakistan's collaboration with al Qaeda grows more and more evident.

And then there's Benghazi. The cover-up -- dressing the terrorist attack up as a demonstration over a movie gone wrong -- disgraces her tenure. It was a transparent attempt to sweep an issue under the rug to help Obama get re-elected.

The press corps that follows Hillary around the world is unanimous in praising her. They are her captives. Covering Hillary is their full time assignment. If they annoy her, they are frozen out on the plane and can't do their jobs. Sycophancy alone is tolerated.

Hillary's Dismal Record At StateBy DICK MORRISPublished on DickMorris.com on February 1, 2013

The media spin is that she has been an excellent Secretary of State. But its just spin.

Look at the record:

• Chavez now controls Argentina, Bolivia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Ecuador as well as Venezuela and has big influence in Brazil. He is providing a base for Iran to move into the hemisphere.

• Russia has become more repressive and aggressive. Democracy advocates are more subject to arrest and torture and nothing has come of the "reset" except more appeasement.

• The Ukraine has drifted closer to Russia and further away from the West.

• Iran is much closer to having the bomb and likely using it against Israel.

• We've lost Egypt and Islamist power is sweeping the Arab world. The singular achievement of American Mid East diplomacy over the past fifty years -- the Camp David Accords -- are being undone as we speak.

• North Korea gets ever more brazen, has become a nuclear power, and now has put a satellite into orbit.

• China still weakens its currency making our products too expensive there and theirs' cheaper here. And it launches cyber attacks against institutions like the New York Times with total impunity.

• The Islamist offensive in sub-Sahara Africa gains momentum.

• Afghanistan is no closer to putting down the Taliban, is still one of the most corrupt of the world's governments, and Pakistan's collaboration with al Qaeda grows more and more evident.

And then there's Benghazi. The cover-up -- dressing the terrorist attack up as a demonstration over a movie gone wrong -- disgraces her tenure. It was a transparent attempt to sweep an issue under the rug to help Obama get re-elected.

The press corps that follows Hillary around the world is unanimous in praising her. They are her captives. Covering Hillary is their full time assignment. If they annoy her, they are frozen out on the plane and can't do their jobs. Sycophancy alone is tolerated.

Edward "Ed" Mezvinsky, born January 17, 1937, is a former Democratic congressman. He represented Iowa 's 1st congressional district in the United States House of Representatives for two terms, from 1973 to 1977. He sat on the House Judiciary Committee that decided the fate of Richard Nixon. He and the Clinton's were very politically intertwined for years.

In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 charges of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. He was sentenced to 80 months in (Federal) prison.

Ed Mezvinsky embezzled more than $10 million dollars from people via both a ponzi scheme and the notorious Nigerian e-mail scams.

After serving five years in federal prison, he was released in April 2008. He remained on federal probation through 2011, and still owes $9.4 million in restitution to his victims.

So who is Ed Mezvinsky? He's Chelsea Clinton's father-in law.

Has anyone heard mention of this in any of the media? If this guy were Jenna or Barbara Bush's, or better yet, Sarah Palin's daughter's father-in-law, the news would be an everyday headline, large type!

May 18, 2002 WASHINGTON (CNN ...The former first lady responded by saying she is simply "seeking answers and information" about recent revelations that President Bush was alerted prior to September 11 of possible terrorist attacks.

The row between the White House and the Democrat from New York began Thursday when Clinton appeared on the Senate floor and held up a copy of the New York Post with the headline of "Bush Knew."

"The president knew what?" she asked. "My constituents would like to know the answer to that and many other questions, not to blame the president or any other American, just to know."

Fleischer responded in his daily news briefing.

"I have to say, with disappointment, that Mrs. Clinton, having seen that same headline, did not call the White House, did not ask if it was accurate or not," he said.

"Instead, she immediately went to the floor of the Senate, and I'm sorry to say that she followed that headline and divided."

Hours later, the freshman senator fired back.

"What I said is completely in line with what was said by other senators on both sides of the aisle who are asking respectfully for information to respond to questions that are legitimately being posed by the American public," she told reporters.

"We have a responsibility to ask for information, and I think that is not only appropriate but necessary. You know, nobody is more entitled to answers to these questions than the people of New York, and I take that responsibility very seriously."

She added: "I am seeking answers and information. I am not looking to point fingers or place blame on anybody."

Prosecute Hillary. Last week, Speaker Boehner published an Interim Progress Report from the Committees investigating Benghazi that affirms, with absolutely no doubt, that Hillary Clinton lied under oath.Despite her assertion that she had never seen any documents telling of a heightened threat or requesting increased security, she personally signed off on a drawdown of embassy security personnel in Libya.All of her "emotional testimony," all of her assertions that "what difference does it make" about the reason Americans died in Benghazi, all of the snide remarks of the Administration about the Republican investigation are now revealed as nothing but a disgusting attempt to hide from the truth and deceive the American people.Americans Died. Hillary Clinton Lied.Join us in our mission to get justice for the HEROES who died.What needs to happen at this point is abundantly clear.You don't lie about the death of four Americans – including two Navy SEALs – and get away with it. It's time for former Secretary of State Clinton to be prosecuted for perjury.The case for prosecution is well established, and there are no grounds to give Hillary a pass. In fact, the report by the House explicitly states that Secretary Clinton was "seeking to cover up failures by the State Department that could have contributed to the attack last year that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans."There is a strong precedent for taking such action against a senior Administration official. In 2005, Scooter Libby – the Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney – was indicted on charges of two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements to federal investigators, and one count of obstruction of justice in relation to the Plume affair. Libby resigned his government positions immediately after the indictment was announced.If you'll recall from back then, liberals in the government and in the media were doing everything but calling for Libby's head. They were practically frothing at the mouth with indignation that he'd leaked information to the press and lied about it. No one had died, no American property had been destroyed – just the politics of it was enough.But of course it's different when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Whitehouse Spokesman Jay Carney has already started the liberal spin machine at full throttle, making the outrageous assertion that Hillary signed off on all kinds of things – we can't expect her to actually read what she's signing.

Americans Died. Hillary Clinton Lied.Join us in our mission to get justice for the HEROES who died.

As far as this White House is concerned – and the vast majority of the mainstream media – lying under oath is no big deal. Sure, a few American heroes may have been murdered. Radical Islamists may have destroyed our "diplomatic facility"; with rocket launchers. Our own Ambassador may have been slain. But you can't possibly expect them to take accountability for their actions – or even expect them to own up to their mistakes. That's simply beneath a member of the Obama Administration.This despicable arrogance has to stop. And, since there is absolutely no indication that Barack Obama or his liberal allies have any intention of taking responsibility, we must do everything in our power to bring them to justice.The fact of the matter is that the tragedy in Benghazi could have very likely been averted if it weren't for Hillary's signature on that document months prior. She knew the dangers. She knew what the people on the ground saw, and she knew what they needed to deal with it.But Hillary Clinton didn't do a damn thing about it. And because of that, people died. Then she willingly and repeatedly lied to the American people, to the media, and – while under oath – to Congress.We're demanding that she be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If you want to see justice served, and this destructive administration finally held accountable, I urge you in the strongest terms to join us on this mission. Talk to your friends and neighbors, and share this message with everyone you know.Speaker Boehner is showing his willingness to do right by our service people by releasing this report. Now we have to let him and the rest of Washington know that this needs to be the beginning, and not the end.

Americans Died. Hillary Clinton Lied.Join us in our mission to get justice for the HEROES who died.We need a chorus of voices from all across America demanding that Hillary – and any other member of the Obama Administration involved in the Benghazi cover-up – be indicted immediately. Our service people abroad and the American people deserve accountability from the United States government.We must never allow those who put everything on the line for this country to receive such an abhorrent disservice and then have the whole affair swept under the rug. It's time to restore responsibility and honor to our government.That starts with indicting – and ultimately prosecuting – Hillary Clinton for her lies.Sincerely,

Dick Brauer, Colonel, USAF (Ret.)Co-founder, Special Operations SpeaksP.S. Everything we have seen from this administration since the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack, points to a colossal leadership failure in the Obama Administration and their attempts to cover up the truth about what happened. And now, the smoking gun, HILLARY LIED.It is up to us to hold them accountable and to demand real leadership. Please help us hold their feet to the fire with any contribution you can afford. And then sign the petition today to demand a special select committee to investigate the truth about what happened on September 11, 2012.

CCP in Benghazi thread: "Yesterday the sleaze in ex chief - Bill announced Hillary is not definitely running for his past job...."

She polls well because of being out of day to day, issue politics for 5 years. George W. Bush raised his numbers above Obama's the same way. Saying she is out forever is a way of making her malfeasance and refusal to give answers in the Benghazi scandal less important. Needless to say they want this scandal to go away.

The way we know if the Clintons are lying is to watch closely and see if their lips are moving. The problem with listening to liars is that it is a waste of time. We get no information whatsoever about whether she will run or won't run by hearing either of them saying anything either way, especially during the investigation of one of their scandals.

Hillary said under oath:

"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans," Clinton said. "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

The whole thing is a false choice. It wasn't a protest. It wasn't guys out for a walk. It was a planned terror attack. A question in response to a question is an evasion, not an answer at all. What is the matter with her and why can't anyone hold her accountable?!

The question was: "Do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn’t have ascertained immediately that there was no protest?"

The honest answer she wouldn't say, testifying before a Congressional committee, was that she did not need to make that phone call. She knew all along what this was and how the false cover story was concocted.

What did Haldeman or Erlichman ever do that was any worse than this, perjury, conspiracy, obstruction of justice?

ccp, Thanks for finding this. Huma is pretty close to the center of the political universe. Huma is/was Hillary's closest confident. The right wing nuts (anyone to the right of me) were sure she was Hillary's lesbian lover; Huma accompanied Hillary everywhere. Then she was the 'Muslim' in the inner circle affecting our diplomatic policies. She has relatives with ties to CAIR etc.(?) Then she was set up to be Anthony Weiner's wife, a powerful and outspoken congressman - before his bizarre weiner scandal. They had Muslim-Jewish wedding?? Then she was the wife standing by him, sort of. Clintons did not endorse Weiner for mayor - yet. A soft spot for sex scandals? Huma is still with Hillary? Still with Weiner. Now this scandal breaks. Yes, she takes full time pay, sells access or whatever it is she is selling on the side, and we don't get to know who is involved or how this operation works.

If I may continue Huma Abedin coverage in the Clinton thread, did she really not take her husbands last name? This also goes under the category of famous people reading the forum, James Tarato, online editor for the WSJ jumps in on our coverage:

Weiner "defended his wife" during a Saturday campaign appearance. "I'm proud of my wife and I'm proud of the work she's done," he said, adding that "she has done everything completely above-board with approval of the State Department."

- Approval of the State Dept? Approval of a Clinton is not exactly the gold standard of ethics, even in Washington.

Anthony Weiner, who resigned from Congress two years ago this Friday in a side-splitting social-media scandal, is running for mayor of New York? We don't know why, but we're now pretty sure it's not for the money. The New York Post reports that Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, "hauled in as much as $350,000 in outside income on top of Abedin's $135,000 government salary."

Far be it from this columnist to begrudge the Weiners their financial success. What's eyebrow-raising about this, though, is that Abedin, who works for the State Department, is the source of some of that outside income:

Abedin, who served as [Hillary] Clinton's deputy chief of staff when Clinton was secretary of state, later became a 'special government employee' who was able to haul in cash as a private contractor. . . .

One of the clients she did consulting work for while on the government payroll was Teneo Holdings, a firm founded by longtime Bill Clinton aide Doug Band.

The Post reports that Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican the paper describes as "one of the Senate's most aggressive investigators," is looking into the matter. In a letter to Abedin and now-Secretary John Kerry, Grassley "wrote that he was concerned Abedin's status 'blurs the line between public- and private-sector employees, especially when employees receive full-time salaries for what appears to be part-time work.' " Grassley also "suggested Abedin was providing clients 'political intelligence,' " a claim denied by an unnamed "person close to Abedin."

New York's Daily News reports that white-knight Weiner "defended his wife" during a Saturday campaign appearance. "I'm proud of my wife and I'm proud of the work she's done," he said, adding that "she has done everything completely above-board with approval of the State Department."

That may well be true--in which case the scandal here may be what's above board rather than what's below it. The Post reports that an unnamed State Department official "noted there were 100 such consultants at the agency."

A hundred Abedin-size salaries would add up to $13.5 million--presumably not counting benefits--being paid to people whose work for the department has to compete with their outside gigs for their time and attention. Are they thoroughly screened for conflicts of interest? If so, that's an additional expense for the taxpayers. If not, we can't rule out the possibility that some State Department workers are trading on their access to what Grassley calls "political intelligence."

Hillary Has to Dump Bill NowBy Margaret Carlson Jun 18, 2013 Bloomberg-------It doesn't get much stranger. I think Carlson is really arguing for Bill to sit down and shut up, let Hillary step out of his shadow, but she writes it like they should literally break it off for political purposes. So much for family values. If he quiets down for even a couple of years, does she think he would stay in her shadow as First Gentleman of the United States, read to children and work on nutritional education in schools?

It is two for the price of one. Her record without him is to lose to a 2-year Senator of Illinois and totally bungle Benghazi. She is a highly over-rated politician, most popular when out of the spotlight. Biggest accomplishment was to win a Senate race in a far left state and burn a record amount of jet fuel as a member - with no access to the President except the 60 Minutes payoff performance.